I think the earthquake case is a bit more complicated than just "didn't
predict an earthquake". The actual legal issue was the confusing and
contradictory information they released. The public were told to not worry and
"sit back and have a glass of wine".
The seismologists in question were
on a government committee who were responsible for advising the public on "great
risks". They were charged with executing their official duties poorly, in a
manner which caused danger to the public. It's not like they were just
researchers who sat in their labs and just didn't happen to mention there might
be an earthquake. They accepted the additional positions of providing advice to
the public.
It's like how the captain of the Costa Concordia was
charged with sinking his ship and not handling the evacuation correctly. He
didn't intend to sink the ship, but he didn't perform his job as captain to the
level that was expected.
If you're an Italian seismologist, you've
nothing to worry about as a seismologist. If however you accept an official
position to advise the public on the risks of earthquakes, then don't tell the
public to "sit back and have a glass of wine" when you know you can't honestly
say that!
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
